A comparative study on the diagnostic utility of ultrasonography with conventional radiography and computed tomography scan in detection of zygomatic arch and mandibular fractures

Kk, Singh; Jayachandran, S

doi:10.4103/0976-237x.132306

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, we had two undisplaced fractures that could not be identified by USG. Even a 0.2-mm disruption in the fracture site could be identified in our study as agreed by Singh et al 13 The accuracy of our study was assessed to be 94%.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasonography with Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Maxillomandibular Fractures

Airan¹,

Baliga

Sarkar³

et al. 2019

World Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Head and neck trauma forms a major proportion of patients requiring maxillofacial care. Imaging is a vital part in the management of these patients. Many modalities exist that maybe utilized for the purpose of visualizing the fracture defects. Computed tomography (CT) scans have been considered the gold standard even with many disadvantages like associated radiation hazards, high cost factor, unavailability in rural healthcare setup, and time taken for the scans. Aim: Through our study, we aim to compare the efficacy of ultrasonography (USG) and compare it with CT scan in the detection of maxillomandibular fractures. Materials and methods: Over a 2-year period, 50 patients suspected with zygomatico-complex (ZMC) or mandible fractures underwent clinical examination followed by radiographic assessment using ultrasound and CT scans. The sensitivity, specificity, and time taken to evaluate the fractures were determined and compared. Results: High correlation existed between USG and CT scan in the detection of the maxillomandibular fractures. The sensitivity was 95% and the specificity was 90% with a high positive predictive value. Conclusion: Apart from a few disadvantages like difficulty in interpretation of a film without a report or clinical correlation and examiner variability, the advantages associated with its use probably outweigh the shortcomings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Based on the key article by Singh, the sensitivity of the USG technique is represented as 97.4%. 13 Assuming a difference in the sensitivity of 5%, we need a sample of 41 to arrive at a conclusion based on the formula . We took a sample of 50 for our study as the minimum requirement was 41.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasonography with Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Maxillomandibular Fractures

Airan¹,

Baliga

Sarkar³

et al. 2019

World Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sensitivities have been demonstrated at up to 94%, which is slightly higher in comparison to an OPG which has earlier been reported at 93% (30,38). The parameters of a scan should include a linear probe with a frequency of 10-15 MHz (38,40). This will allow for identification of fractures with a step-deformity, but prove harder in diagnosing nondisplaced fractures.…”

Section: Ultrasoundmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Ultrasonography (U/S) has been demonstrated as a useful imaging modality in detecting mandibular fractures (38,39). Sensitivities have been demonstrated at up to 94%, which is slightly higher in comparison to an OPG which has earlier been reported at 93% (30,38). The parameters of a scan should include a linear probe with a frequency of 10-15 MHz (38,40).…”

Section: Ultrasoundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall advantages of U/S are being a fast imaging technique, relatively inexpensive and one that does not use ionising radiation. This would be particularly useful in trauma patients whom are too unstable to have a CT performed or whom are pregnant and therefore wanting to limit radiation exposure (38). U/S however, provides limited detail on quantifying the severity of the fracture due to the limited views achievable and the lack of spatial detail.…”

Section: Ultrasoundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Imaging in traumatic mandibular fractures

Naeem¹,

Gemal²,

Reed³

2017

Quant. Imaging Med. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fracture of the mandible is a common trauma presentation amongst young males and represents one of the most frequently encountered fractured bones within the viscerocranium. Historically, assault was the dominant contributing factor but now due to the increased number of vehicles used per capita, motor vehicle accidents are the primary cause. Mandibular fractures can be classified anatomically, by dentition, by muscle group and by severity. The fracture may also be closed, open, comminuted, displaced or pathological. It is important that the imaging modality used identifies the classification as this will decide definitive treatment. X-ray projections have typically been used to detect a mandibular fracture, but are limited to an anteroposterior (AP), lateral and oblique view in an unstable trauma patient. These views are inadequate to detail the level of fracture displacement and show poor detail of the condylar region. Computer tomography (CT) is the imaging modality of choice when assessing a traumatic mandibular injury and can demonstrate a 100% sensitivity in detecting a fracture. This is through use of a multidetector-row CT, which reduces motion blur and therefore produces accurate coronal and sagittal reconstructions. Furthermore, reconstructive three-dimensional CT images gained from planar views, allows a better understanding of the spatial relationship of the fracture with other anatomical landmarks. This ensures a better appreciation of the severity and classification of a mandibular fracture, which therefore influences operative planning. Ultrasound is another useful modality in detecting a mandibular fracture when the patient is too unstable to be transferred to a CT scanner. The sensitivity however is less in comparison to a CT series of images and provides limited detail on the fracture pattern. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrates use in assessing soft tissue injury of the temporomandibular joint but this is unlikely to be of priority when initially assessing a trauma patient.

show abstract

Facial Trauma

Hogrefe¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparative study on the diagnostic utility of ultrasonography with conventional radiography and computed tomography scan in detection of zygomatic arch and mandibular fractures

Cited by 18 publications

References 9 publications

Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasonography with Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Maxillomandibular Fractures

Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultrasonography with Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Maxillomandibular Fractures

Imaging in traumatic mandibular fractures

Facial Trauma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About